Day after: SCOTUS ruling not so bad?

New money will flow into campaigns this year as a result of Thursday’s Supreme Court decision, but will the impact be as dramatic as all the hyperventilating in Washington suggests?

Experts say probably not.

Story Continued Below

“It’s time for everybody to calm down,” said Ken Gross, a campaign finance expert at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, who, like other lawyers in the field, thinks the possible repercussions of the decision have been exaggerated.

The court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission clears the way for corporations and unions to use their general fund cash to run sharp, targeted ads in political campaigns.

It’s a ruling that advocates of campaign finance reform claim will allow businesses to tap into their vast treasuries and flood the airwaves with hard-hitting ads — commercials that Democrats fear will be aimed mostly at them.

That’s certainly possible, and, even if corporations hold off initially, they could unleash their cash in the future if relations with Congress truly go bad. In addition, there could well be some ideologically driven firms that decide to target particular candidates — just as some wealthy individuals have done in the past.

But the reality is likely to be something more modest, mainly a shifting of cash that’s already in the system away from so-called 527 groups.

In the past decade, corporations have actually been trying to get out of the business of big political giving. They sided with reform advocates when the McCain-Feingold law was first challenged in 2003 and testified on behalf of its ban on unlimited corporate giving to the political parties, which were dubbed “soft money” donations.

The reasons for this reluctance were complex. Some executives hated the way politicians always had their hands out, making appeals that were difficult to turn down for fear of retribution in the legislative process. Others didn’t like the lack of control they had over how their money was spent.

The court ruling would give corporate officials that control, but many of them may decide — especially those in publicly held companies — to keep the cash for their real business needs.

Running attack ads against political targets would create real risks of alienating customers and shareholders. And, given voters’ sentiments toward corporations today, most politicians would probably not welcome a glowing ad campaign on their behalf that was funded by Big Business.

Most CEOs will avoid the whole question by simply sticking with their traditional — and safe — government relations package of lobbying and limited giving through the in-house political action committee, experts said.

As evidence, they note that in 2004 corporations had a chance to jump into the ad game in a big way when wealthy individuals, searching for a way around the ban on soft-money donations, began creating new organizations that were dubbed 527s because of their tax status.

One corporate executive who supported the campaign finance reform laws bans on big donations, remembers being approached to donate to a Republican-leaning 527. “It took me three nanoseconds” to say no, he said.